On 5/17/2023 4:53 PM, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 5/14/2023 10:06 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2023 at 01:39, Abhinav Kumar
wrote:
On 3/20/2023 6:18 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
The struct dpu_rm_requirements was used to wrap display topology and
hw resources, which meant INTF
On 5/14/2023 10:06 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2023 at 01:39, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 3/20/2023 6:18 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
The struct dpu_rm_requirements was used to wrap display topology and
hw resources, which meant INTF indices. As of commit ef58e0ad3436
On Sat, 13 May 2023 at 01:39, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> On 3/20/2023 6:18 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > The struct dpu_rm_requirements was used to wrap display topology and
> > hw resources, which meant INTF indices. As of commit ef58e0ad3436
> > ("drm/msm/dpu: get INTF blocks directly rather than
On 3/20/2023 6:18 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
The struct dpu_rm_requirements was used to wrap display topology and
hw resources, which meant INTF indices. As of commit ef58e0ad3436
("drm/msm/dpu: get INTF blocks directly rather than through RM") the hw
resources struct was removed, leaving
The struct dpu_rm_requirements was used to wrap display topology and
hw resources, which meant INTF indices. As of commit ef58e0ad3436
("drm/msm/dpu: get INTF blocks directly rather than through RM") the hw
resources struct was removed, leaving struct dpu_rm_requirements
containing a single field
